Not a good look..

Lloyd_Christmas · 08-02-2021, 08:08 PM

What do you think of this?

Youtu.be

mtkeller · 08-02-2021, 08:18 PM - **5 Likes**

I think that I refuse to watch anything that goofball posts to YouTube.

Zafar Iqbal · 08-02-2021, 08:28 PM - **1 Like**

Saw it earlier on FB. I think Pentax disappoints.

Lloyd_Christmas · 08-02-2021, 09:06 PM - **1 Like**

He says K1 and KP have better image quality. The K1 I can understand. He attributes that to baking of raw files. Most all reviews give mk III highest marks on image quality...better than competition! So I smell a rat here.

35mmfilmfan · 08-02-2021, 10:41 PM - **1 Like**

No idea who he is - never heard of him, and happy to keep it that way.

**BigMackCam** · 08-02-2021, 10:44 PM - **5 Likes**

I wouldn't give this guy the benefit of a YouTube link, as it only increases his traffic. I've made my views on him quite clear in the past - to wit, I wish him no ill, but I have no interest in his opinions, be they positive or negative towards Pentax (or any other brand). There are far, far better qualified folks to critique our cameras...

Kunzite · 08-02-2021, 11:45 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal

Saw it earlier on FB. I think Pentax disappoints.

That guy doesn't make videos in which Pentax doesn't "disappoints".

I'd rather not watch it and I didn't so far - I guess it would be useless to explain his fans what's wrong with it anyway - but there's a comment about that guy spreading his fingers so he'd make the Pentax grip "insufficient".
CameraVille is a liar and a fraud.

biz-engineer · 08-02-2021, 11:54 PM - **1 Like**

That kind of review/comparison is mostly irrelevant. Before the K3 III was released, you could have compared the K3 to D500 or 90D and conclude that you switch to Canikon, buy new body and new set of lenses.
If you didn't switch to canikon, it means you already had a bunch of Pentax lenses and you didn't have a huge to get something better than Pentax K3.
The Pentax K3 III gives you an camera performance upgrade and replace your beaten K3 (or K5), at the cost of the new camera body only.
Do not confuse buying a new system (e.g new format), switching systems, and camera body only upgrade, as the financial implications are very different.

**nixxo2002** · 08-03-2021, 12:09 AM - **6 Likes**

i think it was a honest review . i don't see better image quality over KP . the only difference it AF , drive mode much faster compare to KP .
but it's overheated very fast . today was around 85 , i was outside camera in shade and was doing macro , as soon i switch to live view it's start overheated . don't kill the messenger ................))))))))))))))

**RobA_Oz** · 08-03-2021, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by nixxo2002

i think it was a honest review . i don't see better image quality over KP . the only difference it AF , drive mode much faster compare to KP .
but it's overheated very fast . today was around 85 , i was outside camera in shade and was doing macro , as soon i switch to live view it's start overheated . don't kill the messenger ................))))))))))))))

The AF is the thing that was most criticised in previous APS-C Pentax bodies. The viewfinder is also a substantial improvement, even if the rest is just detail, to bring the camera up to current standards.

I haven’t had a chance to compare my experience with yours, because we’re in winter here, but others’ seems to indicate that you really need to send your K-3iii back for a replacement.

**BigMackCam** · 08-03-2021, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by nixxo2002

i think it was a honest review . i don't see better image quality over KP

Do you have some side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons - i.e. same shots, same lens, same expoure settings, at a range of ISOs - for both you and fellow forum members to examine closely? That's really the only way to prove to yourself and others that image quality is or isn't improved. At such similar resolutions, any claimed improvements aren't going to be blindingly obvious. Casually thumbing through my photos, I don't see an obvious difference between those taken with my K-5 and K-3, but when I compare identical test shots I can see the strengths and weaknesses of each model compared to the other...

**nixxo2002** · 08-03-2021, 01:22 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Do you have some side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons - i.e. same shots, same lens, same expoure settings, at a range of ISOs - for both you and fellow forum members to examine closely? That's really the only way to prove to yourself and others that image quality is or isn't improved. At such similar resolutions, any claimed improvements aren't going to be blindingly obvious. Casually thumbing through my photos, I don't see an obvious difference between those taken with my K-5 and K-3, but when I compare identical test shots I can see the strengths and weaknesses of each model compared to the other...

i compare hundreds of shots ( same settings , same lens ) the only difference in color science k3 III . don't get me wrong , i think camera has a lot of potential in sports or wildlife . i hope the firmware updates will help .

AfterPentax Mark II · 08-03-2021, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Casually thumbing through my photos, I don't see an obvious difference between those taken with my K-5 and K-3

I think you hit the nail but that is just what it is all about. If you do not see, when casual thumbing, an obvious difference than you may or must conclude that the IQ has not been improved. Let us be honest, you do not show test shots to your friends and family to share the beautiful pictures you made. You show them your portraits, your landscapes or whatever, but never a bunch of comparison test shots. When I made the first pictures with my just acquired KP I really could see the difference with those pictures I made with the K-3 II. I can not scientifically proof that I am right to say this, but it is what my eyes perceive. That a camera shows stellar results with test shots from the obvious set of test charts for camera's is not what that same camera with the same lens has to show in real live shooting pictures. I mean you could tweak any camera to deliver the best results in a test. This made me think of how the car industry influenced the tests for cars to get better results while the real live performance of those cars was different, worse, from what you might expect from the test situation.
I think that nixxo2002 has the right to state that he experiences that the K-3 Mark III does not show a better image quality over the KP and that we should not wipe away his comment because he did not base it on "side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons".

**BigMackCam** · 08-03-2021, 03:11 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by nixxo2002

i compare hundreds of shots ( same settings , same lens ) the only difference in color science k3 III . don't get me wrong , i think camera has a lot of potential in sports or wildlife . i hope the firmware updates will help .

I don't doubt your subjective assessment... What you see is what you see. Do you have some shots - or even just one - from each camera, taken with the same lens, same settings, exact same scene and lighting, that you would might be able to share here? It may be that you don't see an improvement but others might... or it may well be that none of us sees an improvement.

Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II

I think you hit the nail but that is just what it is all about. If you do not see, when casual thumbing, an obvious difference than you may or must conclude that the IQ has not been improved.

Respectfully, I disagree. Two identical photos, resampled for HD display resolution and displayed on my 17" laptop or 24" BenQ monitor, may not demonstrate any advantage in the K-3 (without anti-alias filtering) over the K-5 (with AA filter). Examine the photos side-by-side at 100% reproduction, though, and you'll see the difference. Print those images at large enough dimensions and you'll definitely see the difference, particularly in fine detail - and we must conclude, therefore, that IQ has improved. Whether our final output medium and dimensions leverage that improvement is another matter - but it doesn't alter the fact that IQ is improved. Folks who take photos in great light at low ISO, share them online, but never print large will arguably see little if any IQ advantage between a ten-year-old DSLR and the K-3III.

Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II

Let us be honest

I always am

Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II

you do not show test shots to your friends and family to share the beautiful pictures you made. You show them your portraits, your landscapes or whatever, but never a bunch of comparison test shots. When I made the first pictures with my just acquired KP I really could see the difference with those pictures I made with the K-3 II. I can not scientifically proof that I am right to say this, but it is what my eyes perceive. That a camera shows stellar results with test shots from the obvious set of test charts for camera's is not what that same camera with the same lens has to show in real live shooting pictures. I mean you could tweak any camera to deliver the best results in a test. This made me think of how the car industry influenced the tests for cars to get better results while the real live performance of those cars was different, worse, from what you might expect from the test situation.

Just because you don't leverage or perceive improvements in IQ, doesn't mean they're not there. Equally, just because you perceive IQ improvements in a new camera doesn't mean they are there. Controlled testing is the only way to be sure, unless the difference is so extreme as to be easily visible and quantifiable.

Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II

I think that nixxo2002 has the right to state that he experiences that the K-3 Mark III does not show a better image quality over the KP and that we should not wipe away his comment because he did not base it on "side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons".

I'm absolutely not wiping away nixxo2002's comment. I do, however, feel that claims are of very limited (if any?) value without evidence, especially when they're contrary to the manufacturer's. Ricoh claims the K-3III offers improved image quality, while nixxo2002 - subjectively - sees no improvement. I respect his opinion and take him at his word... but it would be valuable to me and other forum members to validate whether there really is no improvement, or if it's simply below nixxo's threshold in detecting it. That can only be achieved by comparing like-for-like photos using the same lens and exposure settings, and viewing 100% reproduction samples.

I have no skin in the game, here... I don't own a K-3III, and probably won't until it becomes an outgoing model and the price has dropped considerably. Even then, I still may not buy it, as my existing cameras - of which I have way more than I really need - serve my use-cases admirably. It matters little to me if the K-3III has better, equal or worse image quality than the KP (or any other camera, for that matter). I'm interested, though, to know if Ricoh's claims are truthful and verifiable, or if there's really no discernable improvement in IQ after all.

syyrmb · 08-03-2021, 03:57 AM - **1 Like**

DPReview's studio comparison tool has some K3 III and KP shots. Although the low-ISO K3 III shots are blurred, the higher ISO shots are good enough for me to draw the conclusion that K3 III is nearly a stop better than KP (and way better than the Fujis).

08-03-2021, 12:09 AM - 6 Likes	#9
nixxo2002 Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 824	i think it was a honest review . i don't see better image quality over KP . the only difference it AF , drive mode much faster compare to KP . but it's overheated very fast . today was around 85 , i was outside camera in shade and was doing macro , as soon i switch to live view it's start overheated . don't kill the messenger ................)))))))))))))) Attached Images

08-03-2021, 01:08 AM	#11
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,692	Originally posted by nixxo2002 i think it was a honest review . i don't see better image quality over KP Do you have some side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons - i.e. same shots, same lens, same expoure settings, at a range of ISOs - for both you and fellow forum members to examine closely? That's really the only way to prove to yourself and others that image quality is or isn't improved. At such similar resolutions, any claimed improvements aren't going to be blindingly obvious. Casually thumbing through my photos, I don't see an obvious difference between those taken with my K-5 and K-3, but when I compare identical test shots I can see the strengths and weaknesses of each model compared to the other... Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-03-2021 at 01:21 AM.

08-03-2021, 03:11 AM - 2 Likes	#14
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,692	Originally posted by nixxo2002 i compare hundreds of shots ( same settings , same lens ) the only difference in color science k3 III . don't get me wrong , i think camera has a lot of potential in sports or wildlife . i hope the firmware updates will help . I don't doubt your subjective assessment... What you see is what you see. Do you have some shots - or even just one - from each camera, taken with the same lens, same settings, exact same scene and lighting, that you would might be able to share here? It may be that you don't see an improvement but others might... or it may well be that none of us sees an improvement. Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II I think you hit the nail but that is just what it is all about. If you do not see, when casual thumbing, an obvious difference than you may or must conclude that the IQ has not been improved. Respectfully, I disagree. Two identical photos, resampled for HD display resolution and displayed on my 17" laptop or 24" BenQ monitor, may not demonstrate any advantage in the K-3 (without anti-alias filtering) over the K-5 (with AA filter). Examine the photos side-by-side at 100% reproduction, though, and you'll see the difference. Print those images at large enough dimensions and you'll definitely see the difference, particularly in fine detail - and we must conclude, therefore, that IQ has improved. Whether our final output medium and dimensions leverage that improvement is another matter - but it doesn't alter the fact that IQ is improved. Folks who take photos in great light at low ISO, share them online, but never print large will arguably see little if any IQ advantage between a ten-year-old DSLR and the K-3III. Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II Let us be honest I always am Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II you do not show test shots to your friends and family to share the beautiful pictures you made. You show them your portraits, your landscapes or whatever, but never a bunch of comparison test shots. When I made the first pictures with my just acquired KP I really could see the difference with those pictures I made with the K-3 II. I can not scientifically proof that I am right to say this, but it is what my eyes perceive. That a camera shows stellar results with test shots from the obvious set of test charts for camera's is not what that same camera with the same lens has to show in real live shooting pictures. I mean you could tweak any camera to deliver the best results in a test. This made me think of how the car industry influenced the tests for cars to get better results while the real live performance of those cars was different, worse, from what you might expect from the test situation. Just because you don't leverage or perceive improvements in IQ, doesn't mean they're not there. Equally, just because you perceive IQ improvements in a new camera doesn't mean they are there. Controlled testing is the only way to be sure, unless the difference is so extreme as to be easily visible and quantifiable. Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II I think that nixxo2002 has the right to state that he experiences that the K-3 Mark III does not show a better image quality over the KP and that we should not wipe away his comment because he did not base it on "side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons". I'm absolutely not wiping away nixxo2002's comment. I do, however, feel that claims are of very limited (if any?) value without evidence, especially when they're contrary to the manufacturer's. Ricoh claims the K-3III offers improved image quality, while nixxo2002 - subjectively - sees no improvement. I respect his opinion and take him at his word... but it would be valuable to me and other forum members to validate whether there really is no improvement, or if it's simply below nixxo's threshold in detecting it. That can only be achieved by comparing like-for-like photos using the same lens and exposure settings, and viewing 100% reproduction samples. I have no skin in the game, here... I don't own a K-3III, and probably won't until it becomes an outgoing model and the price has dropped considerably. Even then, I still may not buy it, as my existing cameras - of which I have way more than I really need - serve my use-cases admirably. It matters little to me if the K-3III has better, equal or worse image quality than the KP (or any other camera, for that matter). I'm interested, though, to know if Ricoh's claims are truthful and verifiable, or if there's really no discernable improvement in IQ after all. Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-03-2021 at 09:58 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Not using wifi transfer (not good for hundreds of photos to transfer)	Penview52	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	36	10-17-2019 04:04 PM
645D Getting images that look correct but look darker on my computer	rollsman4	Pentax Medium Format	13	11-04-2018 06:31 PM
Not one, not two, not three, not four, but a wedding where half attendees are bob.	LeDave	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	05-16-2016 03:40 AM
Good morning, good afternoon, and good night	TomTom	Welcomes and Introductions	6	04-13-2014 05:13 AM
Nature Not good enough to print but worth a look.	normhead	Post Your Photos!	11	03-22-2012 02:18 PM

08-02-2021, 08:18 PM - 5 Likes	#2
mtkeller Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Sioux City, IA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	I think that I refuse to watch anything that goofball posts to YouTube.

08-02-2021, 08:28 PM - 1 Like	#3
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229	Saw it earlier on FB. I think Pentax disappoints.

08-02-2021, 09:06 PM - 1 Like	#4
Lloyd_Christmas Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 462 Original Poster	He says K1 and KP have better image quality. The K1 I can understand. He attributes that to baking of raw files. Most all reviews give mk III highest marks on image quality...better than competition! So I smell a rat here.

08-02-2021, 10:41 PM - 1 Like	#5
35mmfilmfan Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 4,338	No idea who he is - never heard of him, and happy to keep it that way.

08-02-2021, 10:44 PM - 5 Likes	#6
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,692	I wouldn't give this guy the benefit of a YouTube link, as it only increases his traffic. I've made my views on him quite clear in the past - to wit, I wish him no ill, but I have no interest in his opinions, be they positive or negative towards Pentax (or any other brand). There are far, far better qualified folks to critique our cameras...

08-02-2021, 11:45 PM - 2 Likes	#7
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal Saw it earlier on FB. I think Pentax disappoints. That guy doesn't make videos in which Pentax doesn't "disappoints". I'd rather not watch it and I didn't so far - I guess it would be useless to explain his fans what's wrong with it anyway - but there's a comment about that guy spreading his fingers so he'd make the Pentax grip "insufficient". CameraVille is a liar and a fraud.

08-02-2021, 11:54 PM - 1 Like	#8
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,247	That kind of review/comparison is mostly irrelevant. Before the K3 III was released, you could have compared the K3 to D500 or 90D and conclude that you switch to Canikon, buy new body and new set of lenses. If you didn't switch to canikon, it means you already had a bunch of Pentax lenses and you didn't have a huge to get something better than Pentax K3. The Pentax K3 III gives you an camera performance upgrade and replace your beaten K3 (or K5), at the cost of the new camera body only. Do not confuse buying a new system (e.g new format), switching systems, and camera body only upgrade, as the financial implications are very different.

08-03-2021, 12:54 AM	#10
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Originally posted by nixxo2002 i think it was a honest review . i don't see better image quality over KP . the only difference it AF , drive mode much faster compare to KP . but it's overheated very fast . today was around 85 , i was outside camera in shade and was doing macro , as soon i switch to live view it's start overheated . don't kill the messenger ................)))))))))))))) The AF is the thing that was most criticised in previous APS-C Pentax bodies. The viewfinder is also a substantial improvement, even if the rest is just detail, to bring the camera up to current standards. I haven’t had a chance to compare my experience with yours, because we’re in winter here, but others’ seems to indicate that you really need to send your K-3iii back for a replacement.

08-03-2021, 01:22 AM - 1 Like	#12
nixxo2002 Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 824	Originally posted by BigMackCam Do you have some side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons - i.e. same shots, same lens, same expoure settings, at a range of ISOs - for both you and fellow forum members to examine closely? That's really the only way to prove to yourself and others that image quality is or isn't improved. At such similar resolutions, any claimed improvements aren't going to be blindingly obvious. Casually thumbing through my photos, I don't see an obvious difference between those taken with my K-5 and K-3, but when I compare identical test shots I can see the strengths and weaknesses of each model compared to the other... i compare hundreds of shots ( same settings , same lens ) the only difference in color science k3 III . don't get me wrong , i think camera has a lot of potential in sports or wildlife . i hope the firmware updates will help .

08-03-2021, 02:19 AM	#13
AfterPentax Mark II Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2021 Posts: 1,467	Originally posted by BigMackCam Casually thumbing through my photos, I don't see an obvious difference between those taken with my K-5 and K-3 I think you hit the nail but that is just what it is all about. If you do not see, when casual thumbing, an obvious difference than you may or must conclude that the IQ has not been improved. Let us be honest, you do not show test shots to your friends and family to share the beautiful pictures you made. You show them your portraits, your landscapes or whatever, but never a bunch of comparison test shots. When I made the first pictures with my just acquired KP I really could see the difference with those pictures I made with the K-3 II. I can not scientifically proof that I am right to say this, but it is what my eyes perceive. That a camera shows stellar results with test shots from the obvious set of test charts for camera's is not what that same camera with the same lens has to show in real live shooting pictures. I mean you could tweak any camera to deliver the best results in a test. This made me think of how the car industry influenced the tests for cars to get better results while the real live performance of those cars was different, worse, from what you might expect from the test situation. I think that nixxo2002 has the right to state that he experiences that the K-3 Mark III does not show a better image quality over the KP and that we should not wipe away his comment because he did not base it on "side-by-side 100% reproduction comparisons".

08-03-2021, 03:57 AM - 1 Like	#15
syyrmb Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2020 Location: Qingdao Posts: 94	DPReview's studio comparison tool has some K3 III and KP shots. Although the low-ISO K3 III shots are blurred, the higher ISO shots are good enough for me to draw the conclusion that K3 III is nearly a stop better than KP (and way better than the Fujis).